Mahnaz Jahangirimoez1, Abdallah Medlej1, Mahmoud Tavallaie2, Bahram Mohammad Soltani3. 1. Department of Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. 2. Department of Medical Genetics, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Department of Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. Electronic Address:soltanib@modares.ac.ir.
Transforming growth factor beta/single mothers against
decapentaplegic (TGFβ/SMAD) signaling plays crucial
roles in various cellular processes, cell development, and
carcinogenesis (1). TGFβ is a member of the superfamily
of multifunctional cytokines that binds to the TGFBR1
and TGFBR2 receptor serine/threonine kinases. Binding
of TGFβ to TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 leads to direct
phosphorylation and activation of receptor-regulated
SMAD (R-SMAD) proteins, SMAD2 and SMAD3.
Activated R-SMADs form a heteromeric complex with
the Co-SMAD protein, SMAD4. Once fully formed, the
SMAD complex is translocated into the nucleus, where it
associates with other transcriptional regulators to activate
or suppress the transcription of specific target genes (2, 3).
Although TGFβ signaling is known to induce apoptosis and
cell cycle arrest during the early stages of carcinogenesis,
it has been also shown to promote cancer progression and
metastasis in the advanced stages of cancer (4, 5).MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small (18-24 nucleotides)
non-coding RNAs that control gene expression posttranscriptionally
(6). They are involved in the regulation
of several biological processes. miRNAs generally bind to
the 3¨@untranslated region (3¨@UTR) of their target mRNAs
leading to their degradation or translational repression (7).
Dysregulation of miRNA expression has been observed
in various human tumors (8, 9). Interestingly, miRNAs
are implicated in the process of carcinogenesis by acting
as either tumor suppressors or oncogenes (10, 11). In
addition, miRNAs play important roles in modulating
signaling pathways by regulating the expression of their
components. Various miRNAs have been reported to
control core components of the TGF¦β/SMAD signaling
pathways (12-16).Here, we demonstrated that miR-587 likely has a negative
effect on the expression of TGFβ/SMAD signaling
components. Bioinformatics analysis showed that miR-587 has multiple recognition sites within the 3’UTRs
of two essential components of the TGFβ pathway, the
TGFBR2 and SMAD4 genes. Overexpressing miR-587 in
HEK293T and HCT116 cells (TGFβ pathway-active cells)
resulted in the downregulation of TGFBR2 and SMAD4
expression. Furthermore, dual luciferase assay results
suggested a direct interaction between miR-587 and the
two target genes. Moreover, overexpression of miR-587
resulted in reducing the SubG1-phase cellular population
of HEK293T and HCT116 cells. The results of the current
study suggest miR-587 as an important regulator of TGFβ
signaling pathway.
Materials and Methods
Bioinformatics tools
Prediction of miRNAs that target components of the
TGFβ pathway was performed using the Targetscan (17),
DIANA MicroT-CDS (18, 19) and miRmap (20) web
servers. TargetScan predicts miRNA targets by searching
for the presence of sites that match the seed region of each
miRNA (17). DIANA MicroT-CDS has the potential to
predict miRNA responsive elements (MREs) located in
both the 3ˊ-UTRs and coding sequence (CDS) regions
(18, 19). miRmap uses thermodynamic, evolutionary,
probabilistic, or sequence-based features in its prediction
process (20). The phylogenetic conservation of the
predicted MREs of miR-587 within the 3´UTRs of its
target genes was evaluated using the UCSC genome
browser (21).
Plasmid construction
The miR-587 precursor was polymerase chain
reaction (PCR)-amplified using a pair of specific
primers (Table 1), and the PCR product was cloned
into the multiple cloning site of the pmR-mCherry
expression vector (Clontech, USA). The resulting
construct was transformed and amplified into the
DH5-Alpha E.coli bacterial strain and later extracted
by mini-prep kit (Qiagen, Germany) and sequenced to
verify the absence of any mutations.
Table 1
Primers used in the study
Primer
Primer sequence (5ˊ-3ˊ)
Anchored Oligo dT
GCGTCGACTAGTACAACTCAAGGTTCTTCCAGTCACGACGT18N
U48
TGACCCCAGGTAACTCTGAGTGTGT
miR-587
GGCGCTTTCCATAGGTGATGAGT
Anchored reverse
GCGTCGACTAGTACAACTCAAG
Pre-miR-587
F: TCAGCTCAGACCACATTTCATCA
R: ATGAGGACAGCCATGAGACAGAT
GAPDH
F: GCCACATCGCTCAGACAC
R: GGCAACAATATCCACTTTACCAG
CCND1
F: CAGAGTGATCAAGTGTGACCC
R: CGTCGGTGGGTGTGCAAGC
c-MYC
F: CTCCTACGTTGCGGTCACAC
R: CGGGTCGCAGATGAAACTCT
SMAD4-3ˊUTR
F: AAGTAATGGCTCTGGGTTGGG
R: TCAAACAGCAGAACAAAGATAAGGAA
TGFBR2-3ˊUTR
F: TTTGGATGGTGGAAGGTCTC
R: GCAACAGCTATTGGGATGGT
K-RAS-3ˊUTR
F: GTGAGGGAGATCCGACAATACAGA
R: GCCGCGCTGCTGCTACCTTTGGGC
Cell culture
HEK293T and HCT116 cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s
Modified Eagle Medium:Nutrient Mixture F-12 (DMEM/
F12) or RPMI media, respectively (Invitrogen, USA),
supplemented with 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml
streptomycin (Sigma, USA), and 10% fetal bovine serum
(Invitrogen, USA), and incubated at 37˚C with 5% CO2.
HEK293T and HCT116 cells were obtained from Pasteur
Institute (Tehran, Iran).
Transfection
HEK293T or HCT116 cells were seeded in 12-well
plates (12×104 cells per well). Transfection was performed
using Lipofectamine 2000 reagent according to the
manufacturer’s instructions (Invitrogen, USA).Primers used in the study
RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis and quantitative
real-time polymerase chain reaction
Total RNA was extracted using Trizol reagent according
to the manufacturer’s instructions (Invitrogen, USA).
Genomic DNA was removed by DNaseI treatment as the
following: DNase I treatment (Takara, Japan) at 37˚C for
30 minutes, followed by heat and EDTA inactivation of
the enzyme for 10 minutes. cDNA was synthesized using
Prime Script II reverse transcriptase (Takara, Japan)
according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For miRNA
detection, polyA tailing was performed before cDNA
synthesis using the E. coli Poly (A) Polymerase kit (NEB,
England). Real-time PCR was performed according
to standard protocols by StepOne™ system (Applied
Biosystems, USA). GAPDH and U48 expression levels
were used to normalize the real-time PCR results.
Western blot
Total cellular proteins were extracted from RiboXprecipitated
cell extracts according to a recently reported
protocol (22). The extracted protein concentrations were determined using Bradford assay (23). 40 ìg of each
protein sample were separated by polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis and transferred to a polyvinylidene
difluoride (PVDF) membrane. Primary antibodies
against cyclin D1 protein (Santa Cruz, USA), β-actin
(Santa Cruz, USA) and goat anti-mouse secondary
antibody (BIORAD, USA) were diluted according to
the manufacturers’ instructions. The expression levels
of CCND1 protein was normalized against β-actin
protein expression.
Luciferase assay
The desired fragments of the 3ˊUTRs of TGFBR2 and
SMAD4 genes in addition to a similar-sized fragment of
the K-RAS_3ˊUTR (off target) were cloned downstream
of the Renilla luciferase gene of the PSI-CHECK2
plasmid. The resulting constructs were co-transfected
with the pmR-mCherry/pre-miRNA or pmR-mCherry
vectors in HEK293T cells. 48 hours after transfection,
dual luciferase assay was performed using Dual-Glo
luciferase assay kit (Promega, USA).
Cell cycle analysis
HEK293T or HCT116 cells transfected with miR-
587 or mock were collected 36 hours after transfection,
centrifuged at 1200 rpm for 5 minutes and washed twice
with phosphate buffered saline (PBS). Subsequently,
cells were fixed in 1 ml of 70% ethanol for at least 30
minutes. For each sample, 500 μl propidium iodide
staining solution was added to each sample and incubated
for 30 minutes at room temperature. Cell cycle analysis
was performed by the FACSCalibur flow cytometer (BD
Biosciences, USA).
Statistical analysis
The relative expression of the desired genes was
calculated according to the 2−ΔΔCt method. Real-time
PCR results were normalized against the endogenous
expression of the U48 or GAPDH genes. GraphPad
Prism 7 (GraphPad software, USA) was used to perform
statistical tests (t test) and graph construction. Results
with P<0.05 were considered statistically significant. All
experiments were performed in triplicates.
Results
Bioinformatics analysis suggests miR-587 as an
inhibitor of TGFβ signaling
A set of miRNAs was predicted by the utilized
software to target important genes implicated in the
TGFβ signaling pathway. For instance, hsa-let-7f-5p
and hsa-miR-4458 were predicted to target TGFβR1,
hsa-miR-302a-3p, hsa-miR-302d-3p and hsa-miR-587
were predicted to target TGFβR2 and hsa-miR-548g-
5p, hsa-miR-4288 and hsa-miR-587 were predicted to
target the SMAD4 gene. To select one of the candidate
miRNAs for experimental validation, we focused
on the miRNAs that can target more than one gene
of the TGFβ signaling components at the same time.
In addition, the scores obtained by the software used
were taken into consideration and led to the final
selection of miR-587 as a potential candidate. In
terms of its possible role, miR-587 was predicted to
potentially target two important genes related to the
TGFβ signaling pathway, the TGFBR2 and SMAD4
genes (Fig .1A). Our bioinformatics predictions
showed that each of the 3ˊUTRs of the TGFBR2
and SMAD4 genes contains more than one MRE for
miR-587. Additionally, the seed sequence of miR-587
showed high-scored base pairing with the targets’
MREs (Fig .1B).
Fig 1
Predicted miRNA responsive elements (MREs) of miR-587 within the
3ˊUTRs of TFFBR2 and SMAD4 genes. A. The positions of miR-587 binding
sites within the 3ˊUTRs of TGFΒR2 and SMAD4 transcripts. The numbers
indicate the position of the first nucleotide of each MRE with respect to
the transcription initiation site and B. Schematic representation of the
base-pairing status between the miR-587 seed sequence and the MREs of
the target genes. One MRE is presented for each target gene.
Predicted miRNA responsive elements (MREs) of miR-587 within the
3ˊUTRs of TFFBR2 and SMAD4 genes. A. The positions of miR-587 binding
sites within the 3ˊUTRs of TGFΒR2 and SMAD4 transcripts. The numbers
indicate the position of the first nucleotide of each MRE with respect to
the transcription initiation site and B. Schematic representation of the
base-pairing status between the miR-587 seed sequence and the MREs of
the target genes. One MRE is presented for each target gene.
Downregulation of TGFBR2 and SMAD4 following
the overexpression of miR-587
In order to validate the prediction results, miR-
587 was overexpressed in HEK293T and HCT116
cells. Overexpression of miR-587 was performed by
transfecting the cells with the pmCherry/pre-miR-587
construct or empty pmCherry as a control. Significant
overexpression of miR-587 was detected in both cell
lines transfected by pre-miR-587 in comparison to the
controls (Fig .2A, B). As a result, RT-qPCR analysis
indicated that TGFBR2 and SMAD4 expression levels
decreased significantly in both cell lines (HEK293T
and HCT116) overexpressing miR-587 compared
to the controls (Fig .2C, D). Moreover, the P21 gene
showed a significant downregulation in the HCT116
cells overexpressing miR-587 compared to the
controls, while CCND1 and c-MYC genes showed a
significant upregulation in the same samples (Fig .2E).
In addition, western blot analysis confirmed these
results and showed a significant upregulation of the
CCND1 protein level in comparison to the control
samples (Fig .2F).
Fig 2
Effect of miR-587 overexpression on the expression of its predicted target genes. A, B. HEK293T and HCT116 cells transfected with the pmCherry/
pre-miR-587 construct or empty pmCherry control. Reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) analysis indicated more than
25-fold overexpression of miR-587 in HEK293T cells and ~7-fold in HCT116 cells following the transfection of the pmCherry/pre-miR-587 construct in
comparison to controls (P=0.0002 and 0.0064, respectively), C, D. Following the overexpression of miR-587, the expression levels of TGFBR2 and SMAD4
reduced significantly in both HEK293T and HCT116 cell lines, E. Overexpressing of miR-587 in HCT116 cells resulted in the downregulation of p21 gene
expression, and upregulation of CCND1 and c-MYC genes, and F. Western blot analysis showed a significant upregulation in the CCND1 protein level in the
HCT116 cells overexpressing miR-587 compared to control. RT-qPCR results were normalized according to the endogenous expression of U48 and GAPDH
genes. Western blot results were normalized according to the endogenous expression of β-actin protein. *; 0.01
Effect of miR-587 overexpression on the expression of its predicted target genes. A, B. HEK293T and HCT116 cells transfected with the pmCherry/
pre-miR-587 construct or empty pmCherry control. Reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) analysis indicated more than
25-fold overexpression of miR-587 in HEK293T cells and ~7-fold in HCT116 cells following the transfection of the pmCherry/pre-miR-587 construct in
comparison to controls (P=0.0002 and 0.0064, respectively), C, D. Following the overexpression of miR-587, the expression levels of TGFBR2 and SMAD4
reduced significantly in both HEK293T and HCT116 cell lines, E. Overexpressing of miR-587 in HCT116 cells resulted in the downregulation of p21 gene
expression, and upregulation of CCND1 and c-MYC genes, and F. Western blot analysis showed a significant upregulation in the CCND1 protein level in the
HCT116 cells overexpressing miR-587 compared to control. RT-qPCR results were normalized according to the endogenous expression of U48 and GAPDH
genes. Western blot results were normalized according to the endogenous expression of β-actin protein. *; 0.01
Interaction between miR-587 and the 3ˊUTRs of the
TGFBR2 and SMAD4 genes
In order to examine a direct interaction between miR-
587 and the 3ˊUTRs of TGFBR2 and SMAD4 genes, a dual
luciferase assay was performed. HEK293T cells were
co-transfected with PSI-CHECK2/TGFBR2_3ˊUTR,
PSI-CHECK2/SMAD4_3ˊUTR or PSI-CHECK2/KRAS_
3ˊUTR constructs and pmCherry/pre-miR-587
or mock. PSI-CHECK2/K-RAS_3ˊUTR was used
as an off-target. Dual luciferase analysis indicated a
significant reduction in the luciferase activity of the
cells co-transfected with miR-587 and its target genes
3ˊUTRs in comparison to the controls (Fig .3). These
results suggest a direct interaction between miR-587
and the 3ˊUTRs of TGFBR2 and SMAD4 genes.
Fig 3
Direct interaction between miR-587 and the 3ˊUTRs of TGFBR2 and SMAD4. A significant luciferase activity reduction was
detected in the HEK293T cells co-transfected with PSICHECK-2/TGFBR2_3ˊUTR or PSICHECK-2/SMAD4_3ˊUTR (P=0.02 and 0.0007,
respectively), and pmCherry/pre-miR-587 construct, compared to mock or off-target (PSICHECK-2/K-RAS_3ˊUTR) controls. *; P≤0.05
and ***; P≤0.001.
The effects of miR-587 overexpression on cell cycle
progression
We used propidium iodide flow cytometry analysis
to investigate the effects of miR-587 overexpression on
HEK293T and HCT116 cell cycle progression. The obtained
results showed a significant reduction in the SubG1-
phase and G2-phase populations of the HEK293T cells
overexpressing miR-587 compared to the controls (Fig .4A).
In addition, a significant increase in the S-phase population
of the HEK293T cells compared to the controls was observed
(Fig .4). In HCT116 cells, on the other hand, overexpression
of miR-587 resulted in a significant reduction of the SubG1-
phase population of the cells, but no significant variations in
cells in other cell cycle phases were observed in comparison
to the controls (Fig .4B). These results suggest a role for miR-
587 in arresting the progression of the cell cycle.
Fig 4
Hsa-miR-587 overexpression effect on cell cycle status. A. Flow cytometry analysis indicated that the overexpression of miR-587 in HEK293T
cells resulted in a significant increase of the S-phase cell population (~1.5-folds, P=0.019), and a significant decrease in the SubG1-phase and G2-phase
populations of cells (~1.5-folds, P=0.02 and 0.005, respectively) and B. Overexpression of miR-587 in HCT116 cells resulted in a significant increase of the
SubG1-phase cell population (~1.7-folds, P=0.01), but no significant variation was observed in the populations of the other cell cycle phases in comparison
to the control. *; P≤0.05 and **; P≤0.01.
Direct interaction between miR-587 and the 3ˊUTRs of TGFBR2 and SMAD4. A significant luciferase activity reduction was
detected in the HEK293T cells co-transfected with PSICHECK-2/TGFBR2_3ˊUTR or PSICHECK-2/SMAD4_3ˊUTR (P=0.02 and 0.0007,
respectively), and pmCherry/pre-miR-587 construct, compared to mock or off-target (PSICHECK-2/K-RAS_3ˊUTR) controls. *; P≤0.05
and ***; P≤0.001.Hsa-miR-587 overexpression effect on cell cycle status. A. Flow cytometry analysis indicated that the overexpression of miR-587 in HEK293T
cells resulted in a significant increase of the S-phase cell population (~1.5-folds, P=0.019), and a significant decrease in the SubG1-phase and G2-phase
populations of cells (~1.5-folds, P=0.02 and 0.005, respectively) and B. Overexpression of miR-587 in HCT116 cells resulted in a significant increase of the
SubG1-phase cell population (~1.7-folds, P=0.01), but no significant variation was observed in the populations of the other cell cycle phases in comparison
to the control. *; P≤0.05 and **; P≤0.01.
Discussion
TGFβ/SMAD signaling pathway represents a complex
network that effectively controls fundamental cellular
processes. The activation of this pathway causes an
arrest in the cell cycle of normal cells and early tumors.
Mutational inactivation or dysregulated expression of the
TGFβ/SMAD signaling components has been observed in
human cancers (4, 24). TGFβ signaling has been shown
to play a dual role in the course of cancer progression.
It exhibits a tumor suppressive role in the early stages
of the carcinogenesis process by inhibiting cell cycle
progression and promoting apoptosis (5, 25). However,
in the late stages, it exerts tumor-promoting effects by
increasing tumor invasiveness and metastasis (4, 5).Previous studies described TGFβ/SMAD signaling
as an important inhibitor of cellular proliferation (26).
TGFβ/SMAD signaling downregulates the expression
of a set of genes resulting in the inhibition of cell cycle
transition from G1 to S phase (27, 28). In the current
study, in silico and experimental tools showed that miR-
587 targets important components of the TGFβ/SMAD
signaling pathway. Moreover, overexpressing miR-587
in HEK293T cells resulted in increasing the S-phase cell
population, and reducing the SubG1-phase population.
While in HCT116 cells, overexpressing this miRNA
resulted in reducing the SubG1-phase only, without
exerting any effect on the other cell cycle phases. This
variation may be due to the differences between the
two cell line origins, identities and status. However, the
common effect exerted on the two cell lines at the SubG1-
phase, indicates that miR-587 plays a role in the arrest of
the cell cycle at this phase.The dbDEMC 2.0 database that presents differentially
expressed miRNAs in human cancers, has provided
important evidence about the expression of miR-587
in a set of human cancer samples (29). The available
expression data showed that miR-587 expression is
upregulated in colon and breast tumors in comparison
to normal tissue, and downregulated in high-grade colon
tumors in comparison to low-grade tumors (5). These data
provide an evidence about the function of this miRNA and
its regulatory effects on the TGFβ signaling pathway that
is downregulated in early tumor stages and upregulated
during the late stages (30).
Conclusion
In the current study, we demonstrated a regulatory role
for miR-587 against TGFβ/SMAD signaling. In addition,
our results showed that miR-587 promotes cell cycle
progression.
Authors: Edenir Inês Palmero; Silvana Gisele P de Campos; Marcelo Campos; Naiara C Nogueira de Souza; Ismael Dale C Guerreiro; Andre L Carvalho; Marcia Maria C Marques Journal: Genet Mol Biol Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 1.771
Authors: Jialu Li; Hongwei Liang; Ming Bai; Tao Ning; Cheng Wang; Qian Fan; Yanbo Wang; Zheng Fu; Nan Wang; Rui Liu; Ke Zen; Chen-Yu Zhang; Xi Chen; Yi Ba Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 3.240